As prescribed in 14.201-6(m), insert the following provision:
Contract Award—Sealed Bidding—Construction (AUG 1996)
(a) The Government will evaluate bids in response to this solicitation without discussions and will award a contract to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, considering only price and the price-related factors specified elsewhere in the solicitation.
(b) The Government may reject any or all bids, and waive informalities or minor irregularities in bids received.
(c) The Government may accept any item or combination of items, unless doing so is precluded by a restrictive limitation in the solicitation or the bid.
(d) The Government may reject a bid as nonresponsive if the prices bid are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. A bid is materially unbalanced when it is based on prices significantly less than cost for some work and prices which are significantly overstated in relation to cost for other work, and if there is a reasonable doubt that the bid will result in the lowest overall cost to the Government even though it may be the low evaluated bid, or if it is so unbalanced as to be tantamount to allowing an advance payment.
(End of provision)
[48 FR 42478, Sept. 19, 1983, as amended at 50 FR 1746, Jan. 11, 1985; 50 FR 52434, Dec. 23, 1985; 61 FR 31664, June 20, 1996]
Notes of Decisions
Virgin Islands Paving, Inc. v. United States, 103 Fed. Cl. 292 (Fed. Cl. 2012).
“48 C.F.R. § 52.214-19 . . Based on the bids, the FHWA calculated a total evaluated price for each contract that included the price of the bid plus additional FHWA costs of $2,700 per day to administer the contract.”
Southgulf, Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 977 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
“693, 699 (1999) (quoting 48 C.F.R. § 52.214-19 (d) (1998)). Thus, in order to prove that Ostrom’s bid was materially unbalanced, Southgulf was required to demonstrate that the bid contained inaccurate estimates that created a reasonable doubt that the bid would result in the…”
Dow Elec., Inc. v. United States, 98 Fed. Cl. 688 (Fed. Cl. 2011).
· cites it 2× “” 48 C.F.R. § 52.214-19 (a). Since Plaintiffs bid did not conform to the Solicitation, SLSDC was required to reject it.”
J.E. McAmis, Inc. v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2023).
“Plaintiff argues that the Agency was not permitted to conduct discussions, under 48 C.F.R. § 52.214-19 (a), but the Agency did so when it communicated with Trade West after the date of bid opening.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.